Peter Many thanks. Difficult to find the great benefits of consolidating health and safety regulation, particularly the 84% stated by the Treasury. Cheers. Nigel

Thanks for this link Peter. It appears to reject every one of Lofstedt's key points on consolidation. The only positive statement I can see on a first read is at Para 132. " It appears to me that, rather than any consolidation of any Regulations by theme or hazard, the fulfillment of Professor Löfstedt’s recommendation by clearly marking those Regulations that do create positive health and safety duties and separating the group of ‘administrative’ Regulations may be an effective part of providing a source to best help businesses to easily understand the extent of their duties." All his other comments an conclusions says 'cant be done ;wouldn't work; wouldn't make it any easier and that none of it will have any beneficial impact on making it easier for employers to understand their duties. That would seem to put it squarely in the category of another report for HMG to ignore? There were a couple of specific paras that caught my attention as I read thru' the report. At E.S.24 he says "In short, notwithstanding the apparent perception of a significant number of those that responded to Professor Löfstedt’s consultation, none of the various provisions that touch upon the employer’s duty to undertake a risk assessment mandate the creation of a separate risk assessment from that conducted in pursuance of the duty under Regulation 3(1) MHSWR 1999 and none involves any real element of duplication." and at para 119 he says "Lastly, the pace with which such provision could be updated (by amendment) would be far slower than is possible with the guidance pages on the HSE website and the guidance publications of the HSE and associated bodies; the latter have far more scope for keeping close in step to the ever changing nature of employment and work, with its associated hazards, than do statutory provisions and scope to provide guidance geared to less complex and smaller businesses, without recourse to the detail of Regulations. And just to finish on a lighter note. When discussing workplace transport he offers the following wonderful nugget. LOL? "Para 54.The issue of whether all vehicles that are provided by an employer for use at work are workplace equipment and/or whether every piece of moving workplace equipment is a vehicle may be best left to philosophers rather than lawyers but certainly should not be an issue that a business should spend any time engaged in answering in an effort to understand its duties." p48

A principal inspector from HSE gave a useful update about various matters at an IOSH meeting near Manchester earlier this week. He mentioned that 14 pieces of OS&H legislation were due to be removed, while some new ones would become law in April this year. These include the Health and Safety (Sharp Instruments in Healthcare) Regulations 2013 aimed at dealing with physical and infection risks arising from needles, scalpels and other sharp items. From the ensuing discussion there seemed to be a consensus that the regulations were wholly unnecessary because the risks from 'sharps' have long been known AND matched by appropriate precautions across the broad spectrum of healthcare organisations. Furthermore, it was stated that the relative rarity of sharps incidents nowadays indicated that the precautions were effective through being widely known, understood and heeded. More information about the forthcoming sharps regulations can be found on the internet including an HSE consultation page at http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd244.htm and a more detailed page at http://www.qdosconsultin...9/the-health-and-safety-(sharp-instruments-in-healthcare)-regulations-2013 Both pages indicate that the regulations stem from a European Council Directive. Some time ago during a holiday I happened to meet a long-retired senior HSE inspector and our conversations inevitably touched upon OS&H from time to time. We seemed to agree that far too many sets of OS&H regulations had been introduced since the passing of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act in 1974 (HSW1974). One of the key recommendations made in 1972 by the Robens Committee Report was for fewer regulations and more reliance on standards and codes of practice. However, as the UK wasn't a member of the European Economic Community (EEC) until 1973, presumably nobody really envisaged in the early 1970s that the EEC - subsequently the European Union (EU) - would require the UK to introduce more OS&H legislation. (This is simply a brief interpretation based on a few bits of information, so I'm happy to be corrected by others with much better knowledge and expertise regarding EEC/EU matters.)

The report on CONSOLIDATION:THE PRACTICABILITY AND EFFECTS OF THE OPTIONS FOR CONSOLIDATING HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS by Richard Matthews pretty much confirms what the reality was/is. The so called burden exercise was not based on any robust evidence, but anecdotal feedback from media sources and not realising the difference between the fear of litigation and OTT health & Safety versus health and safety system in UK/GB. On a slight tangent to the topic, HSE ACOPs are not published without prior consultation and the relevant industry representative bodies are consulted before guidance is published. Depending upon the complexity or otherwise of the guidance, it can be prescriptive--otherwise there is no pint of it, but we should remember that guidance is not mandatory to be followed. It is not understanding the status of the ACoPS and Guidance that is the problem, in my view. Unfortunately, representative industry bodies did not publish guidance as expected post HASAWA. Some of them now do it, but it costs a lot to buy it e.g. LPGA, BCGA etc. How many of us respond to the consultations, either directly to HSE or to IOSH? Probably, most of us do not have the time, but it does not appear to be fair to place 100% blame on the HSE for the content of ACoPs and Guidance

I think there is another point to be made, particularly regarding the reduction in number and content of ACoPs. While the system might contain flaws (too prescriptive, etc) the ACoPS provide a good benchmark. If we lose the benchmark it will be for the employer to prove that they have done all that was required. Surely it is easier to demonstrate this if there is a clear line in the sand. The option is for protracted and costly legal battles, constantly changing goal posts as higher courts agree with differing courses of action and even greater ambiguity than we currently have. Prof R Loftstedt was right, the law is broadly fit for purpose. It is the political spin that has been brought to bear that is causing the confusion. I read somewhere that the Government intends to get rid of 3000 Regulations. Where from? I am only aware of about 10% and I think I am "reasonably" informed. But we don't know what we don't know!

Peter Gotch - nice link. I agree that a law for unloading fishing vessels from the year 1665 - really could be consolidated. Got to wonder, why it hasn't been done already though? I mean, we had that truly excellent law that required a person to walk in front of a car to warn others on the road - it saved countless lives - yet it was repealed decades ago (wonder why)!

My response at #6 mentioned a discussion about the impending regulations concerning healthcare sharps. One cynical IOSH member suggested that they could be repealed after several years: This would then enable politicians and HSE to reap some welcome publicity and kudos for getting rid of unnecessary burdensome legislation! :-)

Ron Paragraph 121

Thanks for that Peter -and the associated conclusion is at paragraph 132 - but I think his intention here is to provide a distinction between employer duty and "administrative" regulations by appropriate listings on the HSE web pages, not to make change to the statutes themselves. The more I read the QCs report, the more I see a ripping to shreds of the Coalition's 'red tape' presumptions. You mention red faces. I think the red faces belong with the coalition and not with the HSE who, after all, have only being doing as they were directed. As I say, hopefully now they will drop this nonsense.